Adrian E. v. Department of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 240

Adrian (father) and Crystal (mother) divorced in 2010; Crystal was awarded sole custody and Adrian reasonable parenting time. Children were removed multiple times between 2010–2012; both parents were adjudicated dependent at various points.
In October 2013 the parents entered a mediated parenting agreement adopted by the family court: Crystal received sole legal decision-making and primary physical custody; Adrian received highly restricted supervised parenting time.
Dependency was dismissed in October 2013 after the children were placed with Crystal. In June 2014 the children were removed from Crystal for alleged neglect/abuse and substance use, and a new dependency was filed.
DCS filed petitions to terminate both parents’ rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(11) (prior removal/return/removal within 18 months). The juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights in March 2015, finding the statutory elements satisfied and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
On appeal, DCS conceded that § 8-533(B)(11) could not properly be applied to Adrian given his limited supervised parenting time; the court of appeals agreed and reversed the termination of Adrian’s parental rights.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Appellee's Argument	Held
Whether § 8-533(B)(11) applies to a parent (Adrian) who only had supervised parenting time after dismissal of dependency	Adrian: subsection (B)(11) requires the child to have been returned to that parent’s legal custody; he had only supervised parenting time, not legal custody	DCS originally: "legal custody" in title 8 differs from "legal decision-making" in title 25 and could apply to a parent like Crystal; later conceded it doesn’t apply to a parent with only supervised parenting time	Court: § 8-533(B)(11) does not apply to Adrian; statute targets the parent to whom the child was returned (Crystal), not a different parent with restricted parenting time
Whether interpreting § 8-533(B)(11) to permit severance of a non-custodial parent based solely on the custodial parent’s conduct is permissible	Adrian: such an interpretation would allow termination based on another parent’s conduct and violate due process	DCS: argued titles 8 and 25 use different terms and meanings but ultimately conceded error as to Adrian	Court: such an interpretation would lead to an absurd result and could violate parental due process; statute must be read to target the parent from whom the child was returned and later removed

Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 205 (App. 2008) (standard for viewing evidence in dependency/severance appeals)
In re John M., 201 Ariz. 424 (App. 2001) (de novo review for statutory interpretation in juvenile cases)
E.R. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 56 (App. 2015) (guidance on resolving statutory ambiguity and avoiding absurd results)
Baker v. Meyer, 237 Ariz. 112 (App. 2015) (policy favoring substantial, meaningful parenting time under title 25 reforms)
Blake v. Schwartz, 202 Ariz. 120 (App. 2002) (principle that statutes should be construed to avoid constitutional problems)